CAT/C/63/D/673/2015 7.4 In the present case the Committee notes that the complainant maintains that he was imprisoned and tortured in Iran, then sentenced in absentia to 4 years’ imprisonment and placed on a blacklist, which means that he risks being arrested upon arrival in Iran. It further notes that, according to the complainant, the State party’s authorities failed to take this information into account. However, the Committee observes that in its judgment of 28 January 2014, the Federal Administrative Court analysed the judgment However, the Committee observes that in its judgment of 28 January 2914, the Federal Administrative Court analysed the judgment allegedly handed down by the Iranian courts and concluded that it was doubtful that any criminal proceedings had even been taken against the complainant because he had provided no documentation to that effect. 26 The Committee further notes that, as emphasized by the Federal Administrative Court in its judgment of 14 January 2015, the offences for which the complainant claimed to have been sentenced are offences under ordinary law. 7.5 The Committee also takes note of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s statements and submissions, to which the State party has drawn attention. In particular, the Committee notes that during the proceedings before the national authorities in Switzerland, the complainant submitted two diametrically opposed versions of the events surrounding his arrest and on the manner in which it was carried out, and that he has not provided any information to explain or refute these contradictions. 7.6 The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland do not constitute lasting and intensive activity that could be considered a real and serious threat to the Iranian Government. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s medical assessment report, which indicates that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, albeit without stating the cause, and the fact that the complainant could not remain politically active owing to his medical condition. In addition, the Committee observes that, in its judgment of 3 September 2014, the Federal Administrative Tribunal noted that the post-traumatic stress disorder had manifested only once the asylum procedure had ended, and that the applicant had family and medical facilities in Tehran that could provide him with the assistance he needed. 27 7.7 In this context the Committee nevertheless notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in the past, the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in Iran in the event of his forcible return there. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.28 7.8 The Committee is aware that numerous aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran remain problematic. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, of itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant is personally at risk of being tortured. The Committee also notes that the complainant had ample opportunity to provide supporting evidence and more details about his claims to the Federal Office for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court. However, the evidence provided does not make it possible to conclude that his involvement in political activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Switzerland could put him at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon his return to Iran. 7.9 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not proved that his political activities are important enough to attract the attention of the authorities of his country of origin and concludes that the information 26 27 28 10 See judgment E-2077/2012 of 28 January 2014, para. 6.3, p. 15, available at: www.bvger.ch/bvger/fr/home/jurisprudence/entscheiddatenbank-bvger.html. See judgment E-4534/2014 of 3 September 2014, para. 7.1, p. 7, available at: www.bvger.ch/bvger/fr/home/jurisprudence/entscheiddatenbank-bvger.html. See, for example, C.A.R.M. et al. v. Canada (CAT/C/38/D/298/2006), para. 8.10; Zare v. Sweden (CAT/C/36/D/256/2004), para. 9.5; M.A.K. v. Germany (CAT/C/32/D/214/2002), para. 13.5; S.L. v. Sweden (CAT/C/26/D/150/1999), para. 6.4; and N.B-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9. GE.18-12643